Reply
Thu 10 Mar, 2005 12:21 am
Pinkett Smith's Remarks Debated
BGLTSA calls comments "heteronormative," pledges to work with Foundation
By ANNA M. FRIEDMAN
CONTRIBUTING WRITER
After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith's comments at Saturday's Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.
Students said that some of Pinkett Smith's remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.
In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA-and developed in coordination with the Foundation-the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue.
According to the Foundation's Student Advisory Committee (SAC) Co-Chair Yannis M. Paulus '05, the two groups have already planned concrete ways to address the concerns that Pinkett Smith's speech rose.
The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith's comments. But the Foundation has pledged to "take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class," according to the release.
Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation's "Artist of the Year" at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.
BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods '06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith's speech was "motivational," some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.
"Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable," he said.
Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.
"Our position is that the comments weren't homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships," Woods said.
Margaret C. D. Barusch '06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.
"I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship�-a heterosexual relationship," Barusch said. "I don't think she meant to be offensive but I just don't think she was that thoughtful."
In order to discuss these concerns and ensure that such a misunderstanding doesn't occur again, Paulus said the BGLTSA and the Foundation are planning a joint breakfast later this week as well as a general discussion forum for all of the SAC member groups.
Paulus added that the Foundation will issue a letter later this week apologizing for any offense the show might have caused and encouraging concerned students to attend the planned discussions.
According to Paulus, the letter will acknowledge that "Pinkett Smith was just giving the story of her life. She just told things from her perspective, and her perspective was a heterosexual perspective. She wasn't trying to be offensive. But some felt she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out."
Barusch said the dialogue with the Foundation has been "productive."
"Both groups have really talked about issues of intercultural relationships and sexuality and the way that student groups can talk about these topics in sensitive ways," she said.
Barusch also referred to a "minor controversy" that occurred earlier this year, in which some members of SAC questioned the BGLTSA's role in the Foundation.
"They weren't sure how the BGLTSA would fit into the Foundation...There was some conversation about the relevance of queer issues," she said.
But Barusch emphasized that the Foundation has been very supportive of the BGLTSA's efforts to address this weekend's comments, stressing that the two incidents are unrelated.
"We're not blaming the Foundation. It's not about blame. It's about how we all need to think more about what we're saying," she said.
Ofole U. "Fofie" Mgbako '08, a performer in the Cultural Rhythms show who watched Pinkett Smith's speech, said he thought the speech was "insightful."
"You can never appeal to every single group," he said. "You'll always in some way be exclusive. I thought her message was clear. I thought it was sincere."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are the students demanding that people give talks that are not from that speakers perspective? How much money is the school going to have to spend on more "training" for students? Are they going to demand that all speakers include all people in the school?
Well if every one didn't speak, then no one would be offended.
That includes BGLTSA, since every time they speak, it offends me.
See, I'm gay okay. And I don't see anything particularly wrong with that so I suppose you could say I'm "proud of it".
But the alphabet soup crowd annoy me a bit. They make such a fuss over everything. I see where they're coming from but still, they push way too hard and that reflects on me.
When was the last time you heard someone say "I was such a homophobe until I saw a pride parade."
On the other hand I've heard several HUNDRED times in my life, "I was such a homophobe until I met you and you were so calm (uh, yeah, in real life I'm somewhat different to my forum persona okay) and didn't make a big deal about it."
"Heteronormative"?
That word in itself goes to far.
I understand that PWCHT (Parent's Whose Children Hate Them) were really offended by the remarks and accused her of being affectio-normative.
boomerang wrote:"Heteronormative"?
That word in itself goes to far.
I was horrified to hear you say that. How dare you question? You're such a crypto-fascist.
What are you? Anticrytofasicstnormative?
boomerang wrote:What are you? Anticrytofasicstnormative?
Prosubstantio-transcomanticryptofasci-qualimentatanornative.
Re: Has PC gone to far?
First of all, for a story that is all about the content of a person's speech, it would have been nice to get some excerpts from that speech. Journalism grade for the author, Anna M. Friedman: C-
ANNA M. FRIEDMAN wrote:According to the Foundation's Student Advisory Committee (SAC) Co-Chair Yannis M. Paulus '05, the two groups have already planned concrete ways to address the concerns that Pinkett Smith's speech rose.
Ack! Using "rose" as a transitive verb: Grammar grade, C+
Mistaking "rose" as the past tense of "raise:" Revised grammar grade, D+
ANNA M. FRIEDMAN wrote:"Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable," he said.
What a great word! "Heteronormative." I'll have to slip that into conversations from now on. Maybe even pair it with "paradigm." That would make me sound sooooo smart!
baldimo wrote:Are the students demanding that people give talks that are not from that speakers perspective? How much money is the school going to have to spend on more "training" for students? Are they going to demand that all speakers include all people in the school?
It is the intolerance of limitless toleration.
So how do we fix this issue? These groups are pushing for forced indoctoration of people who don't share their views. Is this right?
Baldimo wrote:So how do we fix this issue?
Difficult challenge. Personally I advocate making fun of them, not for their views or nature but just because they're acting like morons...
Humour can sometimes demonstrate an issue better than anger.
Quote:These groups are pushing for forced indoctoration of people who don't share their views. Is this right?
I plead moral relativism.
Just an observation - had Brian Nichols been escorted by 2 or more deputies into the Fulton County courtroom shackled and in prison garb, as opposed to being taken to a holding cell, escorted by a single deputy, to be relieved of his transport shackles and change into street clothes, as mandated by law in the interest of not prejudicing the jury, Nichols, Judge Barnes and 3 others would today be relatively obscure characters of but local interest.
However, shackles, orange jumpsuits, jailhouse slippers, and adequate escort were deemed politically incorrect. That sillyness will change real quick. Unfortunately, it will do so over the freshly-turned earth of 4 graves.
You're a funny one to be making that comment, timber. I thought you were a defender of all things American.
What you're proposing is much more the state-over-individual rights approach of countries like Canada.
timberlandko wrote:However, shackles, orange jumpsuits, jailhouse slippers, and adequate escort were deemed politically incorrect. That sillyness will change real quick. Unfortunately, it will do so over the freshly-turned earth of 4 graves.
No, orange jumpsuits, shackles, and other indicia of confinement are
not the result of political correctness. They are the result of the well-founded belief that such indicia can prejudice a jury against a defendant. I've been in plenty of courtrooms where, for a pre-trial hearing, a criminal defendant is led into the courtroom in shackles and in a jail-issue uniform. The difference in a criminal defendant's appearance at a pre-trial hearing and at the trial itself has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with guaranteeing that the defendant gets a fair trial.
Joe is correct. Jurors cannot see the incarcerated defendant in an orange jumpsuit or shackled out of a concern that the jury might be prejudiced.
In our local courthouse, the defendants are changed into their civilian clothes while still at the jail next door. They are then brought to the courthouse and to a holding cell next to the courtroom, in their civilian clothes and handcuffed, but completely out of view of potential jurors. The handcuffs are taken off when they are in the courtroom. These days, many defendants charged with a violent offense are hooked up with a device that will give them a shock, not unlike a Taser, if triggered by a deputy on the other side of the courtroom. So if they run or try and attack someone, they can be incapacitated with the press of a button.
None of this answers the questions in the Atlanta case, where it seems clear that policies were not followed, or procedures were inappropriate.
I kinda sorta go along with what you say there, joe - but just kinda. An accused violent felon is an accused violent felon, even though presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Were the individual in question not under arrest and facing charges, the individual would not be before the bench as defendant. To assume or infer a jury might be uncognizant of that is at best disingenuous. That reasonable and prudent precaution be taken strikes me not as prejudicial, but as reasonable and prudent. A stout collar and a sturdy leash do not necessarily mean a big dog is dangerous, but rather that its handler recognizes the need for reasonable and prudent precaution.
In some of the world's courts - even in those of highly developed, generally regarded as "progressive" nations, violent felons attend their trials from within a stout cage in the courtroom, to and from which they are escorted by a team of bailiffs. Are the trials of those individuals thereby unfair?
Ticomaya wrote: ... None of this answers the questions in the Atlanta case, where it seems clear that policies were not followed, or procedures were inappropriate.
I think both are right on the money. It is clear policy not only was not followed, it was inadequate in the first place.
No the PC issue here was the fact that one women with a gun could keep the guy from breaking loose and killing people. There shouldn't ever be a reason where a female guard is left alone and armed with a male who is going to be judged.
I don't care if they stick femals with females, but females with males is bad news.
Hasn't anyone ever heard of a perp walk:
Quote:Yesterday Michelle Malkin featured a photo of this event, and presented it (quoting a highly reliable source--one of her readers) as "[t]he killer of an Atlanta judge ... being taken into custody by a woman cop." This gets the macho badass in Michelle Malkin all riled up. Women, you see, just aren't up to this sort of dangerous task. She uses the photo as an excuse to rant against this as "another way in which the PC agenda kills people."
The trouble is that Malkin doesn't have the faintest idea what she's writing about. The danger level in this scene is right about zero, and anyone who knows anything about criminal work could tell you that.
This is not a photo of a person being taken into custody. This is a photo of a perp walk--the important moment in a high-profile criminal prosecution in which law enforcement parades the captive in front of the media so that they can all get their photos and write their stories. (It's not to be confused with this, by the way.) A perp walk is not at the crime scene, or anywhere near it. It's from a police station to a waiting car, or from a car into a courthouse. There are always lots of uniformed and plainclothes cops around, many of them trying to position themselves to get in the picture and look police-like.
Indeed, you can see several additional cops directly around the bad guy in the photo--the man just down the steps, at the level of the bad guy's crotch, with the sunglasses on; the man to the bad guy's right, who perhaps doesn't look manly enough for Malkin's tastes; and the big dude behind the bad guy with the bulletproof vest (and undoubtedly a big gun in his hands).
Folks, take it from a former prosecutor--this is Criminal Procedure 101 we're talking about here. A rookie reporter in her second week on the city desk would be able to recognize this picture as a perp walk.
Michelle Malkin, however, couldn't.
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archive/2005/03/send_michelle_m.html
And let's not also forget this bizarre twist to this story:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/13/atlanta.shooting/
Now, I'm not denying that Nichols was put in a position to subdue a lone guard. But if it was a lone man, who are we to assume that this STILL couldn't have all taken place?
But I also think that this particular case is SO bizarre on so many levels. I would imagine most would agree.
What's perp walk got to do with the matter at discussion? 4 murders resulting from the escape of an inadequately secured violent felon, who, by the way, had just prior to this final outrage been found to have been in possession of two home-made, but none-the-less deadly weapons, isn't a photo-op.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace